SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequencesperennial streams that receive runoff from SBMR, including Kaukonahua Stream to the north andWaikele Stream to the south.Regulatory and Administrative Mitigation 4: Implementing the ITAM and IWFMP as describedabove would reduce water quality impacts from sediment loading to less than significant.Impact 5: Nonpoint source contamination of surface water. Each of the proposed constructionprojects includes engineering components to control site drainage and to minimize erosion. Forexample, the proposed motor pool maintenance shops would be provided with a storm drainagesystem incorporating modern oil-water separators; repair activities would be performed indoors toavoid stormwater exposure; and petroleum, oil, and lubricants and hazardous waste storage facilitieswould be designed according to modern standards. The motor pool would primarily address theincreased maintenance requirements of the Alternative A, which involves approximately an additional400 wheeled vehicles. The Alternative A would involve retaining the existing motor pool, so thisalternative would not reduce surface water impacts from this motor pool. Accidental spills are notentirely unavoidable, and increased industrial activity under the Alternative A could result in a greaterprobability of accidental spills.Regulatory and Administrative Mitigation 5: Implementing the ITAM, ORAP, and IWFMP asdescribed above would reduce water quality impacts from nonpoint source contamination to less thansignificant.Impact 6: Impacts on groundwater quality. Operating several proposed facilities, particularly themotor pool maintenance shops, the tactical vehicle wash, and the Multiple Deployment Facility(MDF), would involve handling hazardous liquids or other chemicals or processing wastewater orother waste liquids. The MDF is in the Wheeler Gulch area, which reportedly has shallowgroundwater conditions. Implementing mitigation measures described in the mitigation section isexpected to reduce the potential for impacts on groundwater to acceptable levels.Regulatory and Administrative Mitigation 6: Implementing the ITAM, ORAP, and IWFMP asdescribed above would reduce impacts to groundwater quality to less than significant.Impact 7: Erosion impacts on surface water quality. Based on ATTACC modeling results, theAlternative A would severely degrade land condition. MIMs are expected to increase under theAlternative A. Under existing conditions, the effects of maneuver training on land condition areconsidered significant but mitigable to less than significant.There are relatively few large contiguous areas available for maneuver training at KTA. Therefore,the effects of training would be concentrated on the limited available land, and there would be littleopportunity to rotate training to other areas to allow damaged lands to recover. The implication of thisin the relatively steep terrain, with high annual rainfall, is that it would also increase soil erosion.Erosion would not occur all at once but would be progressive. If not mitigated, the rate of erosionwould steadily increase as more land area was disturbed and vegetation cover decreased.Consequently, steady land erosion would contribute to sediment loading in streams. However, withmitigation, impacts to stream water quality from sediment loading are expected to be controlledwithin acceptable levels.Regulatory and Administrative Mitigation 7: Implementing the ITAM and IWFMP as describedabove would reduce water quality impacts from erosion to less than significant.February 2008 5-21 2/25th SBCT Final EIS